Citing 'security concerns' due to government shutdown, Speaker Pelosi urges delay of SOTU address

There is no distinction. The government shutdown directly affects national security. If the government were not shutdown, then the Democrats would be free to negotiate on something like the security at the border.

 

Umm...

$5.7billion is less than $25billion. That is a substantial amount of movement which has already been baked in.

 

This is the latest eyeball to eyeball confrontation between pelosi and trump

I notice that pelosi merely requests that trump not appear before congress

What happens if he calls her bluff and announces he will not honor her request?

 

As I explained previously, there are first amendment limitations on who you can refuse to attend a government event, like the State of the Union. Trump can not, without violating the First Amendment, just turn the State of the Union into a campaign rally.

 

Nothing to call for us to never have SOTU addresses.

It stands to reason the Secret Service and Homeland security has said there is no problem with providing the security for the event. Pelosi put her foot in her mouth just admit it.

There are no concerns that should prevent it, stop being obtuse.

 

He does not get credit for reducing his demand from 25 Billion to 5.7 Billion when everyone, including Trump, knows that 5.7 Billion is only a downpayment on the 25 Billion total.

 

He can do whatever he wants with it all the Constitution says is that he will from time to time report the state of the union to the Congress. It's up to him how when and where.

 

*sighs*

No. Once again, the FIRST AMENDMENT provides limitations. The government can not hold a government event for the public and then refuse to admit people solely because of their political leanings.

Consider the situation where Obama says that he wants to hold a public event to get feedback and to promote Obamacare. And then Obama only admitted people who explicitly told him that they supported Obamacare. Not only is that improper, but that is a violation of the First Amendment.

He can deliver the State of the Union in written form, but it must be addressed to the union of the Congress. He can not do such at a campaign rally because of the reason I just stated. As I consider it, I don't know if he could do it from the Oval Office either because it is not addressed to the "union of the Congress" at that point.

 

The government was "open" until +/- a month ago. Remind me how much progress was being made regarding border security and wall/fence/barrier funding?

Democrats would have kicked this can down the road until Trump was out of office ---- regardless of the cost to the country ---- just so they could pat each other on the backs about what good obstructionists they were.

 

Won't it be great?

 

The time to talk about it is now and the Democrats are refusing. Nothing about the shutdown is preventing any talking or agreeing. The Democrats have a history of giving us what we want and we will later talk about what you want and then never talking about it. Remember Bush41 and the giving in to the Democrats on tax increases for later spending cuts? The Democrats can get all the spending they want in their bill by giving Trump a paltry $3.4B for additional border security, there is no valid reason to oppose that additional security.

 

Interesting theoretical discussion - Here's what it says in the Constitution

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,

As we know, this is normally done by an address TO Congress at the invitation OF Congress.

He can certainly go give a campaign rally speech anywhere he likes and call it the State of the Union. However, in that case, he would need to deliver the text of the speech as the SOTU in writing, since Congress is under no obligation to receive the SOTU on TV and they certainly wouldn't be under any obligation to travel to see it live.

We'll see how this pans out, but I think Nancy hit a hard forehand down the line yesterday...

 

Oh, they are still welcome to attend! I'm sure they'd love it

 

Yes.. she believes the GOP is stupid enough to buy into her lie.

 

It's the Democrats keeping it shutdown.

 

Every President does this, every year.
How is this a controversy?

 

And as I said, I don't think Trump would like to see what he would likely consider a campaign rally turned into a public forum where it is almost certain that a majority of the individuals would boo his every statement.

 

You and the ~30% of Americans who believe that are not enough.

 

Tell the Democrats to stop acting like petulant children and pass the funding for the necessary border security then.

 

Nobody is working for free but you do know that don't you.

So far, President Trump has figured a way around many of the so-called legal requirements.
E-mail the two paragraph speech to the congress critters and roll on with the rally.

I only want to see it because a neighbor owns a company that cleans up crime scenes and exploded leftie brains would be littering the streets everywhere.

 

Then we are good... No worries... Where do you think he'll give it to an audience then?

 

By approving a Repub budget? lol No, this is on Sen. McConnell and President Trump.

 

It is an interesting consideration. The deliverance of the State of the Union to the Congress can be in written form. That was done for about 100 years of US history. And there is absolutely nothing to stop the President from delivering the same speech, verbatim, at a campaign rally the very next day. Indeed, that has happened - in some form or fashion - with every President (they give the speech, and then go deliver the best parts again at a campaign rally).

Another interesting point that you raise is whether the original speech can be delivered to the Congress from someplace else, like the Oval Office. Again, I imagine that so long as he delivered the speech in writing beforehand, that would satisfy the Constitutional requirements, but I do not know.

 

I live in a border state now and have lived as close to the border as Tucson. Believe me, I am thinking clearly and rationally about this.

 

The wall is not necessary to opening the government.

There is zero reason to fund that wall before opening the government.